July 2009

July 30, 2009

What better than a glass of beer to sober down race relations in America? President Barack Obama hosted what is being inevitably called a "beer summit" to cool down the heat generated over the arrest and apparent mistreatment of an African American Harvard professor. Politics is nothing if not theater and Obama is an illustrious practitioner of that craft.

If a glass of beer is all that it took to repair race recriminations, then Germany should have been the fountainhead of great race relations. A bit extraneous to the topic at hand but I had to get it out of the way. After all a blog is also a display window for unrealized aspirations and unheralded insights. Coming back to the beer summit, the meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley, the officer who arrested him in Cambridge, Massachusetts was an extended photo op as well as a chance for the president to hold forth on a subject he knows intimately.

"I am thankful to Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley for joining me at the White House this evening for a friendly, thoughtful conversation. Even before we sat down for the beer, I learned that the two gentlemen spent some time together listening to one another, which is a testament to them. I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode," the president said in a statement after the meeting.

What brings us together may or may not be stronger than what pulls apart but it is certainly not nearly enough to keep us together. I understand that as president, and a historic one at that, part of Barack Obama's job is to transmit hope and optimism about life in general and race relations in particular. I am personally never convinced about the possibility of wholly erasing race/religion/gender tensions from our midst.

Suicide is not what it used to be in Ahmedabad. There was a time when one could end one's life unmolested in the tranquil surroundings of the 15th century Kankaria Lake. But ever since the city municipality began charging a prohibitive entry of fee of ten rupees (about 3 US cents) this once preferred suicide spot has lost its appeal for those plotting a final exit from their wretched existence. Evidently, ten rupees is too expensive. The suicide rate in the lake has gone down significantly. The drop is attributed to the ten rupee entry fee.

I am not sure whether to sneer at or applaud the pragmatic albeit suicidal Amdavadi's (as the people of the city are known) reasoning against paying to die when there are so many other spots that offer an equally quick but free exit out of life. Two questions ought to confront those who have decided to end their lives in the Kankaria Lake – Is my life worth ten bucks? Or If my life is worth ten bucks is there any sense living it?

On a more serious note, during my now concluding stay in Ahmedabad I got the feeling that there has been a definite increase in the rate of suicide. Or at least more suicides are reported than when I used to live here. The city saw at least seven people jump to their death in the Sabarmati River in one week. One suicide a day in a city of more than five million may seem insignificant but it does highlight a trend.

July 29, 2009

At the very least Pakistan has succeeded in injecting the question of Baluchistan in India's national political discourse. Until recently the Pakistani province that constitutes 43% of that country's total land area was at best a matter of peripheral interest even for foreign policy wonks. But its weird inclusion in the joint statement issued by Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani during their recent meeting Egypt has forced New Delhi into some very awkward recalibration of their stand on the matter.

This was compounded by media reports that Gilani had handed over a dossier detailing India's alleged role in stoking ethnic fires in the restive region. It was a measure of how quickly and how far the Baluchistan question has escalated that Singh had to deny in parliament today that Islamabad ever gave New Delhi such a dossier.

It is impossible to deny the strange nature of the way in which the reference to Baluchistan showed up in the joint statement. "(Pakistan's) Prime Minister (Syed Yusuf Raza) Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas," was how the reference was phrased and appeared to have been slapped in as an afterthought. There was neither lead-in to the reference nor any lead-out. Unless Singh successfully spins the Baluchistan inclusion as part of some breathtakingly ingenious foreign policy move, it is fair for his opponents to at least question its existence if not altogether deride it.

I would love to find out what Gilani and his advisors are thinking about the fracas over Baluchistan that they have managed to cause in India.

July 27, 2009

It is one of the great ironies of human experience (wow that is so bloody pompous) is that war can be made to look humorous despite its inherent cruelty. It was only a matter of time before the Iraq war, or at least what preceded its execution, would be turned in to a farce. No one does farce better than the English. "In the Loop" directed by Armando Iannucci comes across as the quintessential British satire on the lines of "Yes, Minister" and 'Yes, Prime Minister." Going by the clip below it is clearly edgier. Even without watching it, I recommend it. How is that for a preconceived judgment?

July 26, 2009

Many Sri Lankans consider the term rickshaw offensive because for them it conjures up the image of an emaciated, chronically hungry man pulling a relatively wealthy customer who might say "chop chop" from time to time. That is when he is not whipping the rickshaw puller. I had a slightly more civilized idea of Bajaj auto-rickshaws of the kind that careen through the streets of Indian cities. So when I asked for a rickshaw a hush fell over the room. One of my in-laws sidled up to me and corrected my transgression in that ever so gentle Sri Lankan tone, "Ane we call it trishaw here."

Almost all trishaws in Colombo and elsewhere are made by Bajaj with occasional ones by Piaggio. I know Sri Lankans who call trishaws Bajaj. Unlike in many parts of India where auto-rickshaw fares are mandated by local governments, in Sri Lanka it is pretty much a rip-off season all year around. The fares between any two points can vary widely, depending on the trishaw driver's whims, your appearance, accent, embarkation and disembarkation and a whole of other things. Traveling between Mount Lavinia Hotel and the home where I was staying one trishaw driver asked me for 300 rupees, while another asked for 150 rupees. Both pulled out those numbers from under their seat with no connection whatsoever to fair fare practices. I chose the one who asked for 150 rupees. Any assumption of my wealth on the basis of my mere egress from a five star hotel would have been terribly flawed. And in any case why would a wealthy man coming out of an expensive hotel walk a few steps and look for a trishaw unless he was an eccentric billionaire?

I do not believe local transport authorities require Sri Lankan trishaw drivers to stick to a certain color theme. As a result there are trishaws of many colors, including purple. Could it be that they charge fares at will to recover the extra cash they spend on painting their vehicles? Such profound questions troubled me while riding through the streets of Colombo. One recurring theme of these rides was pictures and posters of Sri Lankan army soldiers that the rickshaws displayed. One photo in particular showed a fierce looking young soldier with a bottle green bandana and face painted in camouflage colors. He had around his neck a bullet belt which looked so alive I thought it might slither out of the picture.

July 25, 2009

Military generals, retired or active, tend to be grandiloquent. It is in the nature of their profession. So when I read comments by former Pakistan President and army chief General Pervez Musharraf I did not react with any strong opinion.

In an upcoming television interview with Indian journalist Karan Thapar Musharraf was asked about the war between India and Pakistan over the control Kargil, a rugged, high altitude Himalayan mountain pass that both consider strategic. This month marks the tenth anniversary of that war.

"Yes, indeed, it was a big success because it had (an) impact even on the attitude of the Indian side. How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute?" the former general said with considerable flexibility with facts.

It is baffling how Musharraf draws this conclusion. Ten years after a war he thinks brought Kashmir back under bilateral focus one does not quite see any signs of that. Kashmir always remains a decisive issue between the two countries and needs no reminder. Left to India, Kashmir would not even figure in any talks with Pakistan. Left to Pakistan no talks would start without Kashmir being the central talking point. We all know that the reality falls between those to two extremes.

Musharraf's comments come in the midst of some political constituencies celebrating India's victory in Kargil. By some I mean the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which was in power then. In fact, the BJP is accusing the current Congress Party led government of willfully ignoring the tenth anniversary of that victory and in the process undermining the sacrifices made by Indian soldiers.

Musharraf's spin on the Kargil war is a ridiculous attempt by someone who is seen to have engineered the invasion and lost it. Ten years down the line one is not clear what the purpose of that invasion was and what was gained from it. The change of attitude that Musharraf claims it forced on India is nowhere in sight. As a matter of fact Kashmir has been overwhelmed by a series of terror attacks by Pakistan based Islamist groups, topped off by the audacious November 26, 2008 attacks on Mumbai. India has successfully forced Pakistan on the defensive in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks.

Pakistan in turn has tried to regain some of the lost ground by pushing the mention of Baluchistan into the recently issued joint statement by the two countries. It is true that that the mention of Baluchistan is unprecedented in the annals of bilateral diplomacy but a careful reading would suggest that that at best it is gratuitous. India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has committed to make a full statement on the subject in Parliament in July 29. I am curious to see how Singh explains the induction of Baluchistan in the bilateral discourse.

July 24, 2009

My friends, such as they are, have a grouse. They complain that I have not capitalized on the fact that the Dalai Lama authorized me to write a book on his life and times. They also say with complete justification that I am a non-entity in the industry of the Dalai Lama/Tibet opinion-writing. Their point is that people with far less access/qualification/knowledge have managed to publish themselves in the world's leading newspapers and journals or appear on top news channels. I have of course no answer to their well-meaning ribbing other than attributing it to my natural reluctance.

There are those who find it pathetic that I have only this blog to occasionally express my considered opinion on Tibetans affairs. They find it pathetic because they know about the blog's embarrassingly miniscule readership. One friend in particular was so agitated the other day that he fulminated, "Who gives a rat's ass about your blog? Tell me when The New York Times or The Economist publishes you." It was meant as an insult but I did not take it to be one. I write anything with a fundamental belief that it is the content that matters (in so much as anything matters at all in this universe) and not who publishes it. The only counter argument that I offer to my friends is that I hope the Dalai Lama biography speaks for itself. If it does not, so be it.

Two years after it was first published by Doubleday/Random House, the book has so far been published in 18 languages. It has done reasonably well in terms of its overall sales and critical notices. It has not attracted the kind of press reserved for anything that Pico Iyer or Pankaj Mishra might write but on balance, I suppose, it has got its due. I am no judge of what is fair media attention despite having been a part of the industry for close to 30 years. If fair media attention means Thomas Friedman introducing me in a panel discussion on the Dalai Lama and Tibet with a tenth of the exultation with which he introduces Nandan Nilekani then I have not even begun to get media attention, fair or unfair. If fair media attention means an occasional interview with an odd newspaper somewhere in the world, then I have got it.

Just about now I have begun to wonder about the relevance of all this to any of you but that is the problem with blogs. They are often without any immediate context although by and large I have remained professional and detached from myself. I have an essay brewing in my mind about the Dalai Lama and Tibet. Once I am ready with it I will post it here apart from trying to get it published in The New York Times or the Economist to placate my friends, such as they are.

July 22, 2009

One may never quite find out the full measure of the diplomatic bungling surrounding the India-Pakistan joint statement issued at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt but the bits and pieces coming out in the Indian media do not tell a very reassuring story.

Of particular concern to those opposed to the language of the statement is the reference to Baluchistan, the largest province of Pakistan. Although the reference to Baluchistan is quite ambiguous and constitutes just one line, the fact that it appears at all in the statement has been trouble political constituencies in India. "(Pakistan's) Prime Minister (Syed Yusuf Raza) Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas," the statement says. On the face of it this might seem innocuous but within the supercharged and supersensitive bilateral climate between India and Pakistan the mention of the troubled Baluchistan region is fraught with serious consequences.

The implication of this reference was read by many in India to mean that Pakistan was referring to New Delhi's involvement in stoking ethnic trouble in the region that constitutes 43% of Pakistan's total land area. It has been suggested by elements in Pakistan for a long time that India's external intelligence agency, the quaintly named Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has been encouraging the unrest in Baluchistan with the eventual aim of dismembering Pakistan. These are fantastic claims with little or no connection to reality. It is possible that India's intelligence agencies are at the very least monitoring, if not actually encouraging, the unrest in Baluchistan but the idea that there is a plan to dismember Pakistan by hiving off its largest province is extreme.

Media reports in India suggest that Indian diplomats had specifically briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to agree to let any reference to Baluchistan creep into the joint statement. But Singh went beyond his brief, according to Arati R Jerath and Javed M Ansari writing in today's Daily News and Analysis. Quite predictably the Baluchistan reference and the fact that Singh agreed to delink terror in order to resume bilateral talks have set off a firestorm of protest from the country's main opposition parties.

The need to come up with a joint statement was felt so urgently by the two prime ministers, especially Singh, that they crafted some of the crucial phrases without any aides. It is clear that by allowing the Baluchistan reference Singh may have handed the one opportunity that Pakistan was looking for. Mercifully, India-Pakistan relations are so whimsical and so complex something completely random might crop up and make Baluchistan irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. But that is not how diplomacy should be conducted. For those of you who care here is the text of the joint statement:

"The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, met in Sharm-el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009.

The two Prime Ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end.

Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed.

Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas.

Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.

July 21, 2009

Few international disputes need regular reminders the way the China-Tibet issue does. Notwithstanding its most illustrious champion in the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan question has a way of frequently receding into irrelevance because China is at the other end of the negotiating table. It is from this perspective that the news that U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to meet the Dalai Lama during the latter's visit to Washington D.C. in October is highly significant.

Even if one discounts that the office of the U.S. president no longer enjoys the kind of overarching influence it once did, the Obama-Dalai Lama meeting has the potential to refocus the world's attention on a dispute that Beijing would happily sweep under the carpet of history. Of course, China will issue stern warnings against the meeting and let the U.S. know its potentially detrimental effect on bilateral relations. This choreographed outrage should hardly prevent President Obama from going ahead with the meeting and making an unambiguous statement in support of opening a direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

Unless Obama makes a categorical assertion in favor of a decisive and direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama with a specific timeframe, the meeting will be yet another symbolic act with no real impact. Five decades of indifference is long enough even for a dispute as complex as the one between China and Tibet. The meeting will have transformational impact only if President Obama calls on China to start direct talks with the Dalai Lama to seek a peaceful resolution of the Tibetan dispute within an identifiable deadline. Open-ended negotiations of the kind China has held with the Dalai Lama's representatives are nothing but a war of attrition in the hope that his mortality will remove him from the scene sooner rather than later.

Beijing has to be mindful that it cannot possibly deal with simultaneous uprisings in Tibet and Xinjiang. In the case of Xinjiang Beijing at least has the pretense of branding the disaffection among the Uyghur Muslims as an Islamist insurrection inspired by the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine. In Tibet it cannot get away with such labels given the Dalai Lama's stellar record of non-violent approach for over five decades.

July 19, 2009

If Elliot Sperling is to be believed the Tibetan government-in-exile is totally clueless about major changes in China's official positions on the crucial question of regional nationality autonomy. The answer to the government-in-exile's quandary over how to craft an acceptable position lies in the way China's refashions its regional autonomy laws.

Writing for the Times of India today, Sperling, who is the director of Tibetan Studies program in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at the Indian University in the US, describes the Dalai Lama's chief negotiators Kelsang Gyaltsen and Lodi Gyari and others as "functionally illiterate" in the vast interpretive literature on the question of regional autonomy. "That never seems to have perturbed the Dalai Lama's people as they wander quite blindly around major issues of Chinese policy," Sperling writes.

This is a pretty serious criticism of those who are entrusted the task of helping resolve one of the most intractable autonomy questions. Although I have been following the issue of Tibet for over a decade now, I am also "functionally illiterate" in the understanding of the complex web of regional autonomy laws that Beijing has created to deal with precisely the kind of questions it faces in Tibet.

I am not sure if this piece is available on the newspaper's website but it is bound to stir up debate within the Tibetan government-in-exile as it struggle to position itself vis-à-vis Beijing.